I'm talking about this amalgamation of professional atheist speakers that go to conferences and stuff, maybe have regular podcasts just to tell everyone for the 597564532523th time there's no God... people like AronRa or Dillahunty or Thunderf00t (pre-2012 or 2013 anyway) Can we say it's been a long shit show?

Here are 3 main things that bother me about it:

1. It doesn't actually represent atheists accurately. Not every atheist or agnostic is interested in publicly "debunking religion" or promoting being non-religious. I'm not.

2. The repeated implication in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that atheist=rational/logical, no merit to it whatsoever and is just a form of group supremacism at the end of the day.

3. Repeated attempts by far leftist ideologues to hijack atheist conferences and other atheist circles and try to impose ideological purity. Was tried with Atheism+, was tried with deplatforming Thunderf00t and Dawkins for not being progressive i.e. far left enough, was recently tried when SJWs sent letters to get Sargon of Akkad uninvited from the Mythicist Milwaukee conference over petty drama that no sane person would care about, real motive being that Sargon is a harsh critic of the far left. That only failed because these organizers had balls, but a few far left speakers did quit or promised to not come again if Sargon was on, which is just pressure to make MM kick him next year.

Well sorry, but if you want to be THE atheist movement, you have to accept everyone, not just the so-called uber progressives, you have to accept moderate leftists, centrists, conservatives, libertarians, apolitical and anything in between. You can't say "we represent atheism worldwide" and "btw, if you're not a progressive we'll shun you". Choose one or the other, you can't have BOTH. Ideological purity also harms free exchange of ideas so I'm not sure how these people want to get something "rational" out of it. You can't improve anything without criticism first.

1. It doesn't actually represent atheists accurately. Not every atheist or agnostic is interested in publicly "debunking religion" or promoting being non-religious. I'm not.

Indeed, not every atheist or agnostic is interested in publicly "debunking religion".....but some are.I have heard a few of the vocal atheists address this very issue. They have talked about how they do not try to represent every atheist, but a certain segment. Most of them promote the idea of there being different kinds of atheist, as there are different kinds of theist - that can be reached in different ways.If you do not enjoy one kind, just find another.

2. The repeated implication in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that atheist=rational/logical, no merit to it whatsoever and is just a form of group supremacism at the end of the day.

I think it is rather the other way around. A rational/logical examination of the god question, just about inevitably leads to non-belief, ie atheism.So instead of atheist=rational/logical, it is rational/logical=atheist.

3. Repeated attempts by far leftist ideologues to hijack atheist conferences and other atheist circles and try to impose ideological purity. Was tried with Atheism+, was tried with deplatforming Thunderf00t and Dawkins for not being progressive i.e. far left enough, was recently tried when SJWs sent letters to get Sargon of Akkad uninvited from the Mythicist Milwaukee conference over petty drama that no sane person would care about, real motive being that Sargon is a harsh critic of the far left. That only failed because these organizers had balls, but a few far left speakers did quit or promised to not come again if Sargon was on, which is just pressure to make MM kick him next year.

Tree wrote:I'm talking about this amalgamation of professional atheist speakers that go to conferences and stuff, maybe have regular podcasts just to tell everyone for the 597564532523th time there's no God... people like AronRa or Dillahunty or Thunderf00t (pre-2012 or 2013 anyway) Can we say it's been a long shit show?

Here are 3 main things that bother me about it:

1. It doesn't actually represent atheists accurately. Not every atheist or agnostic is interested in publicly "debunking religion" or promoting being non-religious. I'm not.

As far as I know pretty much none of the atheist activists I value (including the people mentioned) claim to be speaking for all of us, most actually have stated at one time or another that they represent themselves only. Nor have I seen them saying that atheists should do what they are doing. I don''t think being an atheist gives you any duties.

2. The repeated implication in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that atheist=rational/logical, no merit to it whatsoever and is just a form of group supremacism at the end of the day.

I wouldn't say that the claim has no merit whatsoever, I'd say that it is comparatively true that atheists are generally more rational and logical than religionists. Of course there is the caveat that somewhat outspoken atheists that do deal with the superstitionist crap regurlary , like people in this forum, tend to have more practice in rationality and logic so that scews the data a bit. To point it out just isn't useful in any way.

3. Repeated attempts by far leftist ideologues to hijack atheist conferences and other atheist circles and try to impose ideological purity. Was tried with Atheism+, was tried with deplatforming Thunderf00t and Dawkins for not being progressive i.e. far left enough, was recently tried when SJWs sent letters to get Sargon of Akkad uninvited from the Mythicist Milwaukee conference over petty drama that no sane person would care about, real motive being that Sargon is a harsh critic of the far left. That only failed because these organizers had balls, but a few far left speakers did quit or promised to not come again if Sargon was on, which is just pressure to make MM kick him next year.

Yeah, the SS deplatforming campaign was partly succesful but luckily not totally. On a positive side the Go Fund Me of MM to cover their losses (they are pretty much a volunteer group) from this year and the speakers that cancelled because of SS's deplatforming campaign is standing at a bit over 18 000$ from a 12 000$ goal which means they can probably do it again next year and they just might have the balls to get other controversial (like Sargon, Armored Sceptic or Shoe on head) speakers. I would still love to see Sargon against SS in a well moderated discussion for the entertainment value alone, but we know that it's not going to happen since SS isn't interested in discourse. Props for Thomas Smith for going against "The Great Sargon" (The Great Satan, get it?).

Well sorry, but if you want to be THE atheist movement, you have to accept everyone, not just the so-called uber progressives, you have to accept moderate leftists, centrists, conservatives, libertarians, apolitical and anything in between. You can't say "we represent atheism worldwide" and "btw, if you're not a progressive we'll shun you". Choose one or the other, you can't have BOTH. Ideological purity also harms free exchange of ideas so I'm not sure how these people want to get something "rational" out of it. You can't improve anything without criticism first.

Indeed. I don't want THE atheist movement, because that would mean forcing people to certain set of ideas apart from atheism. Atheist + tried that and failed, the so called SWJ's are trying that now and they'll fail too. I can, and do, disagree with atheists on a number of issues but I recognise that I value open discourse more than uniformity of ideas among the atheist sphere.

Tree has a list of complaints but but I feel none are warranted because I'm not convinced there is any "Atheist movement" to speak of.

Tree wrote:I'm talking about this amalgamation of professional atheist speakers that go to conferences and stuff, maybe have regular podcasts just to tell everyone for the 597564532523th time there's no God... people like AronRa or Dillahunty or Thunderf00t (pre-2012 or 2013 anyway) Can we say it's been a long shit show?

Here are 3 main things that bother me about it:

1. It doesn't actually represent atheists accurately. Not every atheist or agnostic is interested in publicly "debunking religion" or promoting being non-religious. I'm not.

I'll address both of these "points" in this part sice they're connected:Do anyone of these confirm an "atheist movement"? Do anyone of these claim to represent atheists as a whole?

"Ism"s have their vocal and militant members, atheism, skepticism, liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, etc.Not every atheist/skeptic/liberal/conservative/nationalist speakers that "go to conference and stuff" represent every atheist/skeptic/liberal/conservative/nationalist accurately and there are still plenty of people that will point that out to them.Not every atheist/skeptic/liberal/conservative/nationalist is insterest in publicly debunking or refuting an opposite Ism or promoting theirs.

The above is pretty much understood about those other Ism, I do not see why that understanding should be different for atheism.And I fail to see how the above equals "long shit shows".

Tree wrote:2. The repeated implication in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that atheist=rational/logical, no merit to it whatsoever and is just a form of group supremacism at the end of the day.

I do not experience the implications you experience...

And find this criticism particularly ironic coming from you.

Tree wrote:3. Repeated attempts by far leftist ideologues to hijack atheist conferences and other atheist circles and try to impose ideological purity. Was tried with Atheism+, was tried with deplatforming Thunderf00t and Dawkins for not being progressive i.e. far left enough, was recently tried when SJWs sent letters to get Sargon of Akkad uninvited from the Mythicist Milwaukee conference over petty drama that no sane person would care about, real motive being that Sargon is a harsh critic of the far left. That only failed because these organizers had balls, but a few far left speakers did quit or promised to not come again if Sargon was on, which is just pressure to make MM kick him next year.

Well sorry, but if you want to be THE atheist movement, you have to accept everyone, not just the so-called uber progressives, you have to accept moderate leftists, centrists, conservatives, libertarians, apolitical and anything in between. You can't say "we represent atheism worldwide" and "btw, if you're not a progressive we'll shun you". Choose one or the other, you can't have BOTH. Ideological purity also harms free exchange of ideas so I'm not sure how these people want to get something "rational" out of it. You can't improve anything without criticism first.

I'm not familiar with the "Mythicist Milwaukee" conference but was the pressure perhaps because "Sargon is a harsh critic of the far left" and that the "Mythicist Milwaukee" conference wasn't about sloppily researched attacks on the left?

I wouldn't be interested in hearing Sargon speak, let alone share a stage with him and I would expect the freedom to let the conference organisers what I think.

And no, I do not see how "if you want to be THE atheist movement, you have to accept everyone" follows. Not only because - There's a difference between "atheist speakers" and "atheist movement" - I doubt "if you want to be THE progressive movement, you have to accept Antifa speakers" or "if you want to be THE conservative movement, you have to accept Nazi speakers" would convince anyone.

Atheist speakers and conferences do not have to offer a platform to every speaker just because they're atheists too.

What bothers me is the repeated attempts of "I'm an atheist too therefore I'm entitled to a platform"

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

Tree wrote:I'm talking about this amalgamation of professional atheist speakers that go to conferences and stuff, maybe have regular podcasts just to tell everyone for the 597564532523th time there's no God... people like AronRa or Dillahunty or Thunderf00t (pre-2012 or 2013 anyway) Can we say it's been a long shit show?

Perhaps, but considering that the There Is a God contenders have been at it for millennia, I think it's probably fair to say that complaining about repetition after a decade seems a tad motivated.

Tree wrote:Here are 3 main things that bother me about it:

Really? It bothers you?

Tree wrote:1. It doesn't actually represent atheists accurately. Not every atheist or agnostic is interested in publicly "debunking religion" or promoting being non-religious. I'm not.

Does anyone claim to be accurately representing all atheists?

I doubt it from the sane ones. Only the plums like PZ Myers try to take on the robes of the high priest of Athe.

Tree wrote:2. The repeated implication in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that atheist=rational/logical, no merit to it whatsoever and is just a form of group supremacism at the end of the day.

If there's 2 competing ideas and one is shit while the other rejects that shit, then you can call it supremacy of ideas if you want, but that's just the nature of reality, logic, and the propensity for bad ideas to be wrapped up in cultural baggage that provides them a varnish of legitimacy they simply don't possess.

Tree wrote:3. Repeated attempts by far leftist ideologues to hijack atheist conferences and other atheist circles and try to impose ideological purity. Was tried with Atheism+, was tried with deplatforming Thunderf00t and Dawkins for not being progressive i.e. far left enough, was recently tried when SJWs sent letters to get Sargon of Akkad uninvited from the Mythicist Milwaukee conference over petty drama that no sane person would care about, real motive being that Sargon is a harsh critic of the far left. That only failed because these organizers had balls, but a few far left speakers did quit or promised to not come again if Sargon was on, which is just pressure to make MM kick him next year.

A+theism was a torrent of shit from the outset, and Tf00t became a purveyor of shit later on, sadly. Just look at the maniacal numpties who follow him now!

As for Sargon - he's a fucking loon. I don't give a rat's chuff about ideology, politics, or any of the bollocks above, but none of that means that Sargon of fucking Akkad is legitimate. He's a hateful tosspot with a YT channel - I don't see why anyone would give him a fucking platform.

Tree wrote:Well sorry, but if you want to be THE atheist movement, you have to accept everyone, not just the so-called uber progressives, you have to accept moderate leftists, centrists, conservatives, libertarians, apolitical and anything in between. You can't say "we represent atheism worldwide" and "btw, if you're not a progressive we'll shun you". Choose one or the other, you can't have BOTH. Ideological purity also harms free exchange of ideas so I'm not sure how these people want to get something "rational" out of it. You can't improve anything without criticism first.

Fuck atheism, fuck the atheist movement, and fuck politics. Bad ideas exist to be destroyed, and that's all that matters.

MarsCydonia wrote:I wouldn't be interested in hearing Sargon speak, let alone share a stage with him and I would expect the freedom to let the conference organisers what I think.

Not that I'd have the slightest bit of interest in going to any of these conventions - I can think of many walls of wet paint I'd prefer to watch first - if I happened to be at one and Sargon of fucking Akkad was on stage, I think it might be an appropriate time to take up slinking out for a smoke again.

Personally, I think the guy's a vicious moron. The only people I can imagine liking him are the typical vacuous YT trolls who get off on someone publicizing their hatred better than they can. Perhaps that's unfair to everyone who watches him, but as with Tf00t - the torrent of abuse, vitriol and general nastiness amply evident in their comments sections should ring warning bells for anyone who values critical thought.

If there is a movement atheism, I see it more in a group like Freedom From Religion Foundation. That is to say, they are a group that cares about separation between government and religion. However, organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State show that this ideal is not just an atheist ideal. Not sure what else a negative belief can organize around (insert your own cat herding joke here). I have honestly never seen a point in the atheist conferences. I would rather go to Dragon Con.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:If there is a movement atheism, I see it more in a group like Freedom From Religion Foundation. That is to say, they are a group that cares about separation between government and religion. However, organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State show that this ideal is not just an atheist ideal. Not sure what else a negative belief can organize around (insert your own cat herding joke here). I have honestly never seen a point in the atheist conferences. I would rather go to Dragon Con.

Agreed. A secular movement which involves separating silly bronze age belief systems from the machinery of the modern state - now that's something to get behind, and it's the kind of group that would include people who consider themselves religious just as much as those who don't, because the common component isn't tribalism, but rather evidence-based thinking and a working knowledge of history.

But an atheism convention? I just don't personally get it. How is it worth getting together with a group of people who share only one thing with you - a disbelief?

Sparhafoc wrote:But an atheism convention? I just don't personally get it. How is it worth getting together with a group of people who share only one thing with you - a disbelief?

I do believe it depends where you're from. If you're an atheist in a highly religious area, being an atheist represents being an "other" and I imagine there is some value of hearing people share why and how they alsoe became an "other", value in the knowledgae that you're not alone in being an "other".

If churches are the social support of the religious, those conferences can act the same way for the atheists and non-believers. With hopefully less blind following because since the "why and how" of atheist speaker are often stories of skepticism, there discussions should be about the value of skepticism and rational inquiry.

There's a reason those conferences and conventions happen in mostly religious areas. In areas where atheism is the norm, you don't usually have these conventions talking about how normal you are.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

MarsCydonia wrote:I do believe it depends where you're from. If you're an atheist in a highly religious area, being an atheist represents being an "other" and I imagine there is some value of hearing people share why and how they alsoe became an "other", value in the knowledgae that you're not alone in being an "other".

While I can certainly imagine the possibility (I live in the most religious nation in the world), it still doesn't really explain why it's so important. If it's something one doesn't believe, how does one then put such onus on it as a reason to engage in an event with fellow not-like-minded people?

Can the non-belief in gods really present any form of collective reason for a group of otherwise wholly disparate people to get together regularly and have a symposium and guest speaker pseudo-celebs present opinions on the topic of the thing they don't believe in? It just seems so utterly opaque to me. Humans are perplexing creatures indeed.

Of course, not believing tells us nothing else about the person, be it their views, or their likes and dislikes. As such, one must presume that any conversation participants may have with one and other have about as much likelihood of being amicable and comfortingly like-minded as going to the local supermarket and striking up a conversation with random shoppers.

However, like every other social situation, if one encounters an idiot who wants to, for example, rant endlessly about a group he hates, then as in every other situation, I guess that person becomes persona non grata, regardless of their otherwise shared disbelief in divine entities. I very much doubt this is about the regressive left so much as about it not being the 19th century.

MarsCydonia wrote:If churches are the social support of the religious, those conferences can act the same way for the atheists and non-believers. With hopefully less blind following because since the "why and how" of atheist speaker are often stories of skepticism, there discussions should be about the value of skepticism and rational inquiry.

There's a reason those conferences and conventions happen in mostly religious areas. In areas where atheism is the norm, you don't usually have these conventions talking about how normal you are.

It might be my misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that such events were typically national with people coming in from all over the country, or even international with participants from all over the world?

Now, it might be just about having a good chinwag - we are a social, chattering species, and I guess attending such an event is more likely to provoke certain topics of conversation that otherwise might be absent. Is that what you mean by social support?

I may be wrong but I do not believe "Mythicist Milwaukee" was national but I believe an event such as the "Reason Rally", where speakers are mostly atheist skeptics, had a national appeal and at least 1 international speaker in Dawkins.

But even if such events are national, would this not still have appeal in a country where religiosity is high and there is still a huge bias towards non-believers and atheists? I do not believe these events centre around non-belief but rather about the experiences of being a minority non-believer among a majority that is biased against people like you. It's about speaking up and normalizing non-belief in places where non-belief is considered abnormal.

Note that I am entirely speculating as to the possible appeal of these conference/convention, as far as I know, there is no atheist conference/convention where I live (most people are "culturally religious" rather than actually religious where I live).

I know there are some hosted within the U.S. (unsurprisingly considering the reliogisity of it) but I would certainly not travel internationally to one. But if it was within reasonable driving distance, I might be tempted to travel to hear Matt Dillahunty speak (depending on the topic too).

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

MarsCydonia wrote:Tree has a list of complaints but but I feel none are warranted because I'm not convinced there is any "Atheist movement" to speak of.

How do movements in general come into existence? It's enough that a visible and large mass of people agree on a cause (like associating on the basis of not believing in god) and act towards it.

Do anyone of these confirm an "atheist movement"? Do anyone of these claim to represent atheists as a whole?

Dillahunty was all on board with Atheism+ and that's enough said.

Pre-2012 Thunderf00t definitely acted like it, even tried to make a sharp distinction between the "age of reason" and the "age of religion" and described atheism as a house that shouldn't be divided against itself. I say pre-2012 because he seems to have changed his mind now on the whole thing.

I don't remember for certain if AronRa ever said that explicitly, but he does act that way like he's some sort of atheist "priest" or let's say atheist spokesman. In one of his videos "Don't Blame the Atheists" he constantly say "We this" "We that", as if he speaks for atheists. Not sure who elected him to do so... No the context of debunking anti-atheist bigotry still doesn't justify it either.

There's even a video of his called "Where is OUR candidate?" from the 2012 POTUS election - implying that there actually is one candidate that atheists should support. There's no "atheist's candidate". People vote their values and interests, that's it. While AronRa may argue that say candidate X is the obvious atheist choice because the others are theocratic or whatever (even that's debatable), that's not necessarily so. It's entirely possible the so-called "theocratic" candidate offers policies that some atheists may find more important than having a rigidly secular government. Things like stronger foreign policy or property rights and free markets.

It's possible they also agree with the policies of social conservatives on secular grounds. I mean, personally I'm 50-50 split on that. I find a lot of their policies stupid, but they do have a point about family values. The idea that only religion affirms family values so any policies in that direction are automatically "theocratic" is silly.

MarsCydonia wrote:"Ism"s have their vocal and militant members, atheism, skepticism, liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, etc.Not every atheist/skeptic/liberal/conservative/nationalist speakers that "go to conference and stuff" represent every atheist/skeptic/liberal/conservative/nationalist accurately and there are still plenty of people that will point that out to them.Not every atheist/skeptic/liberal/conservative/nationalist is insterest in publicly debunking or refuting an opposite Ism or promoting theirs.

That I don't entirely agree with. Political causes are all about being public. If you're say a nationalist who keeps quiet about it, you're not going to be very effective in getting your policies passed. At the very least you'd need to go out and vote for a nationalist and that nationalist candidate will have to mercilessly defend his position and attack non-nationalists positions to win.

Atheism and theism isn't like that, it can be purely personal if you want it to. Liberalism, conservatism, nationalism these are all systems of organizing very large groups of people, entire nations in fact. If you're a liberal or whatever only in the privacy of your own home or mind, how exactly does that work?

Tree wrote:2. The repeated implication in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that atheist=rational/logical, no merit to it whatsoever and is just a form of group supremacism at the end of the day.

I do not experience the implications you experience...

"Reason" RallyLogic T-ShirtsConstantly boasting about being skeptical and conflating skepticism with atheism

I'm not sure how these escaped you. It is very common in YouTube atheist circles AND the conferences that go along with that.

Not to say that I don't think religion is crap. There's no solid basis for believing any of them, I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is this idea that somehow theists are stupider than atheists. Also just keep in mind that literally everyone thinks they are being rational about what they believe, they wouldn't believe it otherwise, so self-identifying as "rational" or "logical" or whatever instead of just practicing being rational and letting more objective third parties judge you is a really bad way to go about it.

I noticed that some people are arguing that atheists on average are more rational than theists... but I haven't really see any basis for that either. Nor would it prove that it is the atheism itself making them smarter.

For that matter, I haven't seen any evidence that any of these atheist spokesmen, besides maybe Dawkins or Thunderf00t (who would need to have a very high IQ to be the scientists they are) are particularly smart. Hmm. Not saying they're dumb either, just saying I'd love to see their IQ tests because I think they might be inflating their own self-worth for money and attention. Well, my bet's on Mensa not contacting them most of them any time soon...

When someone claims to be this super "skeptical" and "rational" person, how do you quantify that? Considering anyone can claim so.

I'm not familiar with the "Mythicist Milwaukee" conference but was the pressure perhaps because "Sargon is a harsh critic of the far left" and that the "Mythicist Milwaukee" conference wasn't about sloppily researched attacks on the left?

No, it's because SJWs got butthurt MM wasn't a leftist echo chamber. Why would Sargon be out of place there? They didn't even know what he was going to talk about, they just decided he's the devil and the organizers should boot him.

I wouldn't be interested in hearing Sargon speak, let alone share a stage with him and I would expect the freedom to let the conference organisers what I think.

Not hearing Sargon speak is a valid personal choice, it's just not choice anyone should make for other people.

The organizers wanted him that's not the problem. It's butthurt SJWs like Steve Shives who made a fuss over it because they want any kind of atheist related events to be about their far left ideology.

- I doubt "if you want to be THE progressive movement, you have to accept Antifa speakers" or "if you want to be THE conservative movement, you have to accept Nazi speakers" would convince anyone.

Antifa are violent thugs, free exchange of ideas doesn't extend to calls for violent action like smashing up shops or hitting people with bike locks. Not the same thing.

When people say conservative, especially in an American context, they generally mean small government, free markets, individual rights. National socialism is a collectivist ideology that's totalitarian and has very little in common with that so they wouldn't belong at conservative gatherings. A better example would be excluding hardcore libertarians from conservative conferences, well sorry you can't have that. If you wanted a more specific kind of conservative you should have said so before.

Hell, national socialism isn't even particularly pro-free market. The major industries have to be nationalized. Yes, there is private ownership, but only as long as that owner does what the regime says.

As for Sargon - he's a fucking loon. I don't give a rat's chuff about ideology, politics, or any of the bollocks above, but none of that means that Sargon of fucking Akkad is legitimate. He's a hateful tosspot with a YT channel - I don't see why anyone would give him a fucking platform.

Well, he is an atheist, he probably has something to say about it and he has a large following so maybe he will bring in large crowds. Can't really have a conference with fringe speakers nobody knows about.

Why would he be out of place for a conference like MM? If you read their description on their site he fits right in.

I don't go to these conferences btw, I'm just asking why he'd be unfit for it?

Gnug215 wrote:I dislike movements.

They usually entail people being moved by a crowd in a direction they actually don't want to be going.

The only movements I like are bowel movements, and those contain less shit than what I've seen from the "Atheist movement" over the years.

Movements can be useful in the right circumstances and with the right causes, but yeah beware of collectivist attempts to control you.

Steelmage99 wrote:I think it is rather the other way around. A rational/logical examination of the god question, just about inevitably leads to non-belief, ie atheism.So instead of atheist=rational/logical, it is rational/logical=atheist.

While I agree with that, I'd like to point out: figuring out that one issue still doesn't justify the chest-thumping some people engage in. It's one issue, there are a million other things you can judge wrong either due to stupidity or bias.

There's no need to put "rational" in so many conference titles, no need to sell logic t-shirts, this is all very excessive. Maybe the first two times it was understandable, now it's just silly.

Besides, even the creationists probably think they're being rational. People need a more objective way to measure this "rationality" and "skepticism" and being "logical". You can't just throw around these words because they sound good.

Tree wrote:How do movements in general come into existence? It's enough that a visible and large mass of people agree on a cause (like associating on the basis of not believing in god) and act towards it.

Right... So where is this visible and large mass of people? Who makes it up? What cause do they agree on? And how do they act toward it?

The only thing atheists agree with is that they do not believe in a god, not exactly a cause that can be acted upon.

Tree wrote:Dillahunty was all on board with Atheism+ and that's enough said.

Atheism+ fits more what I'd call a movement, if it actually had gained any serious motion, than just plain atheism.

Tree wrote:Pre-2012 Thunderf00t definitely acted like it, even tried to make a sharp distinction between the "age of reason" and the "age of religion" and described atheism as a house that shouldn't be divided against itself. I say pre-2012 because he seems to have changed his mind now on the whole thing.

I don't remember for certain if AronRa ever said that explicitly, but he does act that way like he's some sort of atheist "priest" or let's say atheist spokesman. In one of his videos "Don't Blame the Atheists" he constantly say "We this" "We that", as if he speaks for atheists. Not sure who elected him to do so... No the context of debunking anti-atheist bigotry still doesn't justify it either.

Thunderf00t and Aron Ra, pre-2012 or any other year...That's 2 men, unless I'm mistaken...Shouldn't there be a "visible and large mass of people that agree on a cause"?

And I'll help you here: if you don't remember if Aron Ra explicitly said he represents all atheists, then it probably never happened because you're not alone in not remembering it ever happening.

Tree wrote:There's even a video of his called "Where is OUR candidate?" from the 2012 POTUS election - implying that there actually is one candidate that atheists should support. There's no "atheist's candidate". People vote their values and interests, that's it. While AronRa may argue that say candidate X is the obvious atheist choice because the others are theocratic or whatever (even that's debatable), that's not necessarily so. It's entirely possible the so-called "theocratic" candidate offers policies that some atheists may find more important than having a rigidly secular government. Things like stronger foreign policy or property rights and free markets.

It's possible they also agree with the policies of social conservatives on secular grounds. I mean, personally I'm 50-50 split on that. I find a lot of their policies stupid, but they do have a point about family values. The idea that only religion affirms family values so any policies in that direction are automatically "theocratic" is silly.

Right... again... In the video in question, nowhere in it is it suggested that "candidate X is the obvious atheist choice".

I hope you realize that when people mean "we", they don't necessarily mean "we" as "we that share one single thing" but they can speak to "we that share multiple things"? When Aron Ra speaks to his viewers, he speaks to his viewers with "we" and "our", those viewers that share what he says, that wouldn't includes his detractors. I imagine that his true from both Aron Ra, Sargon and numerous youtube personalities.

If there was a movement, the movemement should agree but we also had "The"AmazingAtheist"" arguing that Trump should be the one getting the votes.

Sp lot of what you write seems to your perceptions but not everyone shares your perception as you do. "I don't remember for certain if Aron Ra said he spoke for all atheists but he used "we" and/or "our" therefore he must have meant that he speaks for all of us" is not a very convincing case so I hope I am wrong in interpreting what you wrote as basically saying that.

Tree wrote:That I don't entirely agree with. Political causes are all about being public. If you're say a nationalist who keeps quiet about it, you're not going to be very effective in getting your policies passed. At the very least you'd need to go out and vote for a nationalist and that nationalist candidate will have to mercilessly defend his position and attack non-nationalists positions to win.

Atheism and theism isn't like that, it can be purely personal if you want it to. Liberalism, conservatism, nationalism these are all systems of organizing very large groups of people, entire nations in fact. If you're a liberal or whatever only in the privacy of your own home or mind, how exactly does that work?

That was not the point. You stated that you're bothered with the "atheism movement" because it doesn't represent all atheists accurately. Well, most Isms do not represent all of their Ists accurately either.

Atheism and theism can be purely personal... What does that mean? Does it mean that you can have a certain belief but that you do not feel that you sshould strongly act upon it and only affect your personal choices rather than the choices of others? Then why don't liberalism or conservatism apply? You're "at the very least you'd need to go out and vote" does not even apply in a lot of countries, to even the U.S. if you want to get particular. How many people say they're are liberal or conservative yet do not cast a vote come election day? Are you saying they're not truly liberal or truly conservative?

Not every conservative wants the religious to be able to discriminate by using "it's my religious belief" just not as every liberal wants to have gun control.They're political causes supported by a lot of conservatives or liberals, not conservatism or liberalism themselves.

Tree wrote:"Reason" RallyLogic T-ShirtsConstantly boasting about being skeptical and conflating skepticism with atheism

I'm not sure how these escaped you. It is very common in YouTube atheist circles AND the conferences that go along with that.

Atheism movement? Or atheists (as in "some", not "all")? I'd get why it would bother you, conservatives always boasting about being patriotic and conflating conservatism and patriotism annoys me (because we differ on the idea of what patriotism means), but I'm not convinced you're bothered by an atheism movement that does it as opposed to atheists who do.

Perhaps this would be convincing if I hadn't see videos titled "atheism =/= rational" from those same YouTube atheists. If atheism was a movement with a agreed cause, shouldn't they, at least the majority, agree with "atheism = rational"?

Any atheists that thinks they're more rational because they're atheists does not understand what reason is."Rationality which leads to atheism" shouldn't be conflated with "Atheism which lead to rationality".

Tree wrote:I noticed that some people are arguing that atheists on average are more rational than theists... but I haven't really see any basis for that either. Nor would it prove that it is the atheism itself making them smarter.

See above: "some"."Any atheists that thinks they're more rational because they're atheists does not understand what reason is".

We're in agreement, a lot of atheists agree too. Why are the "atheists who believe atheism doesn't make you rational" not the movement as opposed to "atheists who believe atheism makes you more rational"? Who determined which atheists have the "visible and large mass of people"?

Tree wrote:For that matter, I haven't seen any evidence that any of these atheist spokesmen, besides maybe Dawkins or Thunderf00t (who would need to have a very high IQ to be the scientists they are) are particularly smart. Hmm. Not saying they're dumb either, just saying I'd love to see their IQ tests because I think they might be inflating their own self-worth for money and attention. Well, my bet's on Mensa not contacting them most of them any time soon...

When someone claims to be this super "skeptical" and "rational" person, how do you quantify that? Considering anyone can claim so.

I seriously wonder who're you're talking about and how they became the "atheism movement spokesmen". By which process was this decided?

Tree wrote:When someone claims to be this super "skeptical" and "rational" person, how do you quantify that? Considering anyone can claim so.

Compared beliefs held with their justification.

Tree wrote:No, it's because SJWs got butthurt MM wasn't a leftist echo chamber. Why would Sargon be out of place there? They didn't even know what he was going to talk about, they just decided he's the devil and the organizers should boot him.

As I said previously, if I'm not interesed in hearing Sargon and I wouldn't contribute my money or presence to an event where he speaks, I can let the organizers know. My choice would not be made in a void, it could have an impact on other people yet the decision would remain entirely up to the organizers, Sargon is not entitled to a platform just because he's an atheist.

And why would Sargon be in place there? That was my question. Let's consider the following:

Tree wrote:When people say conservative, especially in an American context, they generally mean small government, free markets, individual rights. National socialism is a collectivist ideology that's totalitarian and has very little in common with that so they wouldn't belong at conservative gatherings. A better example would be excluding hardcore libertarians from conservative conferences, well sorry you can't have that. If you wanted a more specific kind of conservative you should have said so before.

Tree wrote:Well, he is an atheist, he probably has something to say about it and he has a large following so maybe he will bring in large crowds. Can't really have a conference with fringe speakers nobody knows about.

See, the point was and remains, "Why would Sargon be in place there that I do not voice any opposition to it"?

"He's an atheist and has a following" is not convincing. By that standard, CPAC should let David Duke speak there (he's conservative and has a following).David Duke asserted he was fulfilling Trump's promises. Neo-nazis vote for conservatives. Why shouldn't they be allowed a platform at CPAC?

If any conservatives let the organizers know that they're opposed and they'll drop out if Neo-nazis are given a platform, should they be accused of being butthurt of not having their echo chamber? Because they don't know yet what the Neo-nazis are going to talk about?

In both cases, "SJWs" for MM or conservatives for CPAC, is it that they can't form an opinion based on past conduct or that their opinion shouldn't matter because Sargon/Neo-nazies should have their platform there?

So to get back on topic:

Tree wrote:So the atheist "movement"... Can we say it's been a long shit show?

Well, you can but since I'm neither convinced that there is such a thing as an "atheist movement" and that if there is, its "long shit show", I won't.

And so, not "we". You're no more an elected spokesman than Aron Ra. I doubt you meant "we" as if you were, so perhaps you should extend that courtesy.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

Tree wrote:Dillahunty was all on board with Atheism+ and that's enough said.

/scratchy head

Clearly, it's not enough said because I honestly can't parse your meaning.

Are you making an insinuation here? That because X person happened to be in favour of something that eventually turned out to be shit, that their legitimacy or the content of their present ideas is somehow tarnished by that past association?

My viewings of Matt Dillahunty are far from exhaustive - but the few topics I've seen him speak on suggest that he's far more knowledgeable about Christianity than nearly every atheist I've ever met, that he's calm, cautious in his thinking, patient, and a genuinely decent human being.

A+theism may have been a shitfest, but I don't think that everyone who got poo slung on them is forever stained by association.

They usually entail people being moved by a crowd in a direction they actually don't want to be going.

The only movements I like are bowel movements, and those contain less shit than what I've seen from the "Atheist movement" over the years.

Any more than 2 people together is inevitably a conspiracy!

Seriously though, while I appreciate MarsCydonia's points about context of religious belief in peoples' lives, it still strikes me as odd that one would explore their rejection by, at least superficially, emulating that which they don't believe in.

It's the social-grooming tribalism component that makes me suspicious and uncomfortable, it always does. Tribalism seems predicated on zero-sum thinking and cannot produce anything but temporary, fleeting solutions, but more commonly produces only dogma and division.

If non-believers reject religion, shouldn't they have something better to offer than religion without the bollocks bits?

One thing's for sure: the woman or man who designs a recognition tool which runs a routine that automatically identifies and separates out all SJW and all anti-SJW's off to their own private little internet rooms where they can go at it ad infinitum but no longer endlessly subject everyone else to their vacuous torrent of immature obsessive hatred... well, that person would deserve a fucking Noble Peace Prize. Peace at last from the sorry little squabbles.

As I said previously, if I'm not interesed in hearing Sargon and I wouldn't contribute my money or presence to an event where he speaks, I can let the organizers know. My choice would not be made in a void, it could have an impact on other people yet the decision would remain entirely up to the organizers, Sargon is not entitled to a platform just because he's an atheist.

And why would Sargon be in place there?

Agreed unequivocally.

If I am going to pay to attend an event, then I expect the speakers to be credible. Not just some hate loon from YT whose followers mistakenly believe he's a celebrity of consequence.

If someone like Sargon of fucking Akkad attends, then I am not sure it's really an atheism event so much as a little boy's club.

One thing that came into mind when I was reading this though was about the movement thing and how it can't represent all atheists. Think of the civil rights movement in the US in the 50s and 60s. They were a very diverse group with very diverse opinions on everything else but they agreed that blacks should have the same rights as whites. They were able to make a movement on the things they agreed on and strive for that goal, ignoring the other things the disagreed on to work for a better society. Now atheists are not exactly the same as atheism isn't a social goal like civil rights is, but I do think that pretty much all atheists do agree with a few points, like that atheists shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against and that religion should not have official power in a society. The question is can /should we ignore the other points and gather as a movement for those things we do almost universally agree on?